Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Youwerecreated]

As a child I saw the articulated skeletons of dinosaurs and was absolutely fascinated. As i matured, it occurred to me that there is a remarkable similarity in all vertebrate skeletons.

If i were an intelligent creator, I'd have changed it up a little. You know, like trucks and cars. maybe the really big animals have 4 hind legs and some of the birds have 4 legs and two wings.

The incredible consistency is, to me, proof that the various species evolved. Also consistency is the mark of mindlessness not the mark of creativity. Why do species reproduce the next generation very similarly to the previous? Why is there not a regularity of mutation consistent with a great and creative mind?

If there is a precise regularity that can be traced to a precise mechanism, that argues against a creative intelligence working on things with interest.

It's the difference between the Mona Lisa and the Model T.

ALTER2EGO -to- CODE1211:

If the animals evolved, as you claim, where's the evidence of this? The pro-evolution scientists have all admitted that the fossils (bones of long dead animals) is full of nothing but gaps. Gaps indicate there are no bones to connect one type of animal family/species with an entirely different type.

There is none just a vivid imagination.

They try to use an incomplete fossil record as evidence but that shows only stasis they had to create a new theory called punctuated equilibrium.

They do so much dancing in trying to explain the real evidence they can't see how design provides better answers.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If the animals evolved, as you claim, where's the evidence of this? The pro-evolution scientists have all admitted that the fossils (bones of long dead animals) is full of nothing but gaps. Gaps indicate there are no bones to connect one type of animal family/species with an entirely different type.

Gaps aren't proof of anything, except that not all fossils have been, will be or can be found. You're also mixing up several lines of inquiry. Is this about evolution, ID or the origin of the universe?

Respectfully,but this sounds like excuses excuses.

 

[code1211]

As a child I saw the articulated skeletons of dinosaurs and was absolutely fascinated. As i matured, it occurred to me that there is a remarkable similarity in all vertebrate skeletons.

If i were an intelligent creator, I'd have changed it up a little. You know, like trucks and cars. maybe the really big animals have 4 hind legs and some of the birds have 4 legs and two wings.

The incredible consistency is, to me, proof that the various species evolved. Also consistency is the mark of mindlessness not the mark of creativity. Why do species reproduce the next generation very similarly to the previous? Why is there not a regularity of mutation consistent with a great and creative mind?

If there is a precise regularity that can be traced to a precise mechanism, that argues against a creative intelligence working on things with interest.

It's the difference between the Mona Lisa and the Model T.

ALTER2EGO -to- CODE1211:

If the animals evolved, as you claim, where's the evidence of this? The pro-evolution scientists have all admitted that the fossils (bones of long dead animals) is full of nothing but gaps. Gaps indicate there are no bones to connect one type of animal family/species with an entirely different type.

There is none just a vivid imagination.

They try to use an incomplete fossil record as evidence but that shows only stasis they had to create a new theory called punctuated equilibrium.

They do so much dancing in trying to explain the real evidence they can't see how design provides better answers.

I'm not at all sure what you are saying in this...

 

[Dragon]

Before we get started on this, let's see if we can lay to rest the most basic criticism of intelligent design: that it is not falsifiable, and hence not a scientific theory. If it is not a scientific theory, then it cannot compete with evolution, which is one, and therefore there is not much need to discuss it.

However, this is easily remedied, I would think. To "falsify" a theory is to present a test or experiment or observation that, if it results in A instead of B, means that the theory is not correct.

Can someone tell me a test that would, if it turns out a certain way, prove that intelligent design is false? If so, then we must consider it falsifiable and hence a scientific theory. (Note: this does not mean claiming that it IS actually false, just presenting a test that would prove it false, IF it is.)

I await your responses with great interest.

 

[Youwerecreated]

ALTER2EGO -to- CODE1211:

If the animals evolved, as you claim, where's the evidence of this? The pro-evolution scientists have all admitted that the fossils (bones of long dead animals) is full of nothing but gaps. Gaps indicate there are no bones to connect one type of animal family/species with an entirely different type.

There is none just a vivid imagination.

They try to use an incomplete fossil record as evidence but that shows only stasis they had to create a new theory called punctuated equilibrium.

They do so much dancing in trying to explain the real evidence they can't see how design provides better answers.

I'm not at all sure what you are saying in this...

The lack of transitional fossils if evolution happened as they say.

What people fail to understand the more the mutations the less the chance of survival of the species experiencing too many mutations in a short period of time.

Species cannot just show up in the fossil record unless they were created that way.

 

[Dragon]

There is none just a vivid imagination.

They try to use an incomplete fossil record as evidence but that shows only stasis they had to create a new theory called punctuated equilibrium.

They do so much dancing in trying to explain the real evidence they can't see how design provides better answers.

I'm not at all sure what you are saying in this...

The lack of transitional fossils if evolution happened as they say.

What people fail to understand the more the mutations the less the chance of survival of the species experiencing too many mutations in a short period of time.

Hey, YWC, care to rise above your usual silliness and present a way to falsify intelligent design, thus making it a scientific theory? I describe the basic process above. Have a shot.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Before we get started on this, let's see if we can lay to rest the most basic criticism of intelligent design: that it is not falsifiable, and hence not a scientific theory. If it is not a scientific theory, then it cannot compete with evolution, which is one, and therefore there is not much need to discuss it.

However, this is easily remedied, I would think. To "falsify" a theory is to present a test or experiment or observation that, if it results in A instead of B, means that the theory is not correct.

Can someone tell me a test that would, if it turns out a certain way, prove that intelligent design is false? If so, then we must consider it falsifiable and hence a scientific theory. (Note: this does not mean claiming that it IS actually false, just presenting a test that would prove it false, IF it is.)

I await your responses with great interest.

What sets humans apart and make them superior from all other species ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm not at all sure what you are saying in this...

The lack of transitional fossils if evolution happened as they say.

What people fail to understand the more the mutations the less the chance of survival of the species experiencing too many mutations in a short period of time.

Hey, YWC, care to rise above your usual silliness and present a way to falsify intelligent design, thus making it a scientific theory? I describe the basic process above. Have a shot.

Just as viable as your theory and even more viable.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

by Duane Gish, Ph.D.


This impact pamphlet was written by a scientist, and a science educator, and reviewed by an attorney, to provide a brief summary of the scientific evidence supporting creation. The text materials and references listed at the end together give a more thorough discussion of this scientific evidence.

Introduction

Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that:





"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."



This scientific evidence for both models can be taught in public schools without any mention of religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto. There are text materials and teacher handbooks that have been prepared for a fair presentation of both models, creation and evolution. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins.





"This scientific evidence both for creation and for evolution can and must be taught without any religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto."
"Creation-science proponents want public schools to teach all the scientific data, censoring none, but do not want any religious doctrine to be brought into science classrooms."



Definitions of the Creation Model and the Evolution Model

The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time. The scientific model of evolution, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a gradual emergence of present life kinds over aeons of time, with emergence of complex and diversified kinds of life from simpler kinds and ultimately from nonliving matter. The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of complex from simple and change between kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds. The following chart lists seven aspects of the scientific model of creation and of the scientific model of evolution:





The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:



I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.

I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.



II. Life was suddenly created.

II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.



III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.

III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.



IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.

IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.



V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.

V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.



VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).

VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).



VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.



I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.

II. Life Was Suddenly Created.

Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,2 and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.3 These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.5 The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.





"One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve."



III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).

IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.

The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years.8 Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism's natural environment.9 Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration and extinction. Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.10

V. Man and Apes Have a Separate Ancestry.

Although highly imaginative "transitional forms" between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general,11 monkeys,12 apes,13 and men. In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man.14 The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human.15 Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.16 Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright.17 The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).18

VI. The Earth's Geologic Features Were Fashioned Largely by Rapid, Catastrophic Processes that Affected the Earth on a Global and Regional Scale (Catastrophism).

Catastrophic events have characterized the earth's history. Huge floods, massive asteroid collisions, large volcanic eruptions, devastating landslides, and intense earthquakes have left their marks on the earth. Catastrophic events appear to explain the formation of mountain ranges, deposition of thick sequences of sedimentary rocks with fossils, initiation of the glacial age, and extinction of dinosaurs and other animals. Catastrophism (catastrophic changes), rather than uniformitarianism (gradual changes), appears to be the best interpretation of a major portion of the earth's geology. Geologic data reflect catastrophic flooding. Evidences of rapid catastrophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate numerous sedimentary layers (such as at Joggins, Nova Scotia), widespread pebble and boulder layers (such as the Shinarump Conglomerate of the southwestern United States), fossilized logs in a single layer covering extensive areas (such as Petrified Forest National Park), and whole closed clams that were buried alive in mass graveyards in extensive sedimentary layers (such as at Glen Rose, Texas). Uniform processes such as normal river sedimentation, small volcanoes, slow erosion, and small earthquakes appear insufficient to explain large portions of the geologic record. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes.19

VII. The Inception of the Earth and of Living Kinds May Have Been Relatively Recent.

Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time.20 Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;21 (b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium isotopes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years;22 and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes.23 Numerous radiometric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape. Based on the present rate of the earth's cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten.24 Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.25 Thus the inception of the earth and the inception of life may have been relatively recent when all the evidence is considered.26



"There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
"There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model."


Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

 

[Dragon]

Before we get started on this, let's see if we can lay to rest the most basic criticism of intelligent design: that it is not falsifiable, and hence not a scientific theory. If it is not a scientific theory, then it cannot compete with evolution, which is one, and therefore there is not much need to discuss it.

However, this is easily remedied, I would think. To "falsify" a theory is to present a test or experiment or observation that, if it results in A instead of B, means that the theory is not correct.

Can someone tell me a test that would, if it turns out a certain way, prove that intelligent design is false? If so, then we must consider it falsifiable and hence a scientific theory. (Note: this does not mean claiming that it IS actually false, just presenting a test that would prove it false, IF it is.)

I await your responses with great interest.

What sets humans apart and make them superior from all other species ?

That is not a test that would falsify intelligent design. Perhaps you didn't understand the concept. Here's what you need to do.

Describe an experiment for me to perform. (It doesn't have to be one that, practically speaking, I actually can perform, just one that might conceivably be done.)

Describe an outcome of that experiment that, if it occurs, would mean that intelligent design is FALSE.

If you can do this, then you will have shown that intelligent design is a scientific theory and deserves consideration. Have at it.

EDIT: None of the material you presented in your last post qualifies, either. This is really very simple. Tell us a test we could perform, that would prove intelligent design is FALSE. If there is such a test, then ID is a scientific theory. If not, then it isn't one.

 

[Dragon]

See, here's what it really comes down to.

When we're dealing with ideas of such broad application as evolution and ID, it is inherently impossible to finally prove any theory TRUE. Evolution has never been proven true. Neither has the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity. Or, of course, intelligent design.

But while it's not possible to prove these theories true, it is quite possible to prove them FALSE -- or at least, those that are genuine scientific theories can be proven false.

In order to be reasonably considered as an alternative to evolution, what's necessary is that the advocates of ID show how that theory can be proven false, if it is false. That's all. Failing that, there's no reason even to consider ID at all.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Before we get started on this, let's see if we can lay to rest the most basic criticism of intelligent design: that it is not falsifiable, and hence not a scientific theory. If it is not a scientific theory, then it cannot compete with evolution, which is one, and therefore there is not much need to discuss it.

However, this is easily remedied, I would think. To "falsify" a theory is to present a test or experiment or observation that, if it results in A instead of B, means that the theory is not correct.

Can someone tell me a test that would, if it turns out a certain way, prove that intelligent design is false? If so, then we must consider it falsifiable and hence a scientific theory. (Note: this does not mean claiming that it IS actually false, just presenting a test that would prove it false, IF it is.)

I await your responses with great interest.

What sets humans apart and make them superior from all other species ?

That is not a test that would falsify intelligent design. Perhaps you didn't understand the concept. Here's what you need to do.

Describe an experiment for me to perform. (It doesn't have to be one that, practically speaking, I actually can perform, just one that might conceivably be done.)

Describe an outcome of that experiment that, if it occurs, would mean that intelligent design is FALSE.

If you can do this, then you will have shown that intelligent design is a scientific theory and deserves consideration. Have at it.

EDIT: None of the material you presented in your last post qualifies, either. This is really very simple. Tell us a test we could perform, that would prove intelligent design is FALSE. If there is such a test, then ID is a scientific theory. If not, then it isn't one.

I understood but both theories suffer from the same problem but one side admits to faith playing a part while the other will not admit to the faith needed.

http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_can't_be_falsified_(Talk.Origins)

This link for some reason not showing the text.

Evolution can't be falsified (Talk.Origins)


Response Article
This article (Evolution can't be falsified (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Index

Claim CA211:
Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory.
Source: Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 6-7.


CreationWiki response:


An idea is "falsifiable" if it is "Capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation" (from wordweb dictionary).

So when a person says that creationism or evolutionism is not falsifiable, they are saying there are no experiments that can show that the related theories are false or wrong.

It was science philosopher Karl Popper who argued that falsifiability should be a criterion of what is scientific and what is not.

Let's briefly take a look at the theory of evolution and see why anyone would call it unfalsifiable or untestable.

The modern Darwinian theory covers a huge span of history, mostly without any human presence, humans only appearing in the last possible fraction of the theory. A lot of events happened that couldn't be observed or recorded. Nobody saw if there was any "common ancestor" of all living creatures. Nobody saw the hypothetical creature reproduce so many times that it became a fish, or the time when a fish became a non-fish (an amphibian). Nobody saw if natural selection caused this grand-scale change by using the accumulated mutations. Nobody saw the multitude of special events that is supposed to have happened in the theoretical time frame. But the theory stands on the premise that all these things happened. You cannot test the distant past because no eyewitnesses were there to make observations. All you can do is make predictions about what would have happened if such a theory were true.

"Investigators can test some sub-theory predictions of a general theory, but this does not automatically establish the general theory as a completely testable concept. This can be readily understood by considering the general historical theory that first life came to earth in a rocket ship. The sub-theory that a living organism could crawl out of a rocket ship can be tested, but this does not test whether or not a rocket ship actually brought life from outer space. Similarly, the evolution sub-theory that populations change slightly can be tested, but this does not prove that the general theory of common ancestry evolution is true." (Darwin's Enigma, chapter 2, Luther Sunderland, 1988)

So the theory just becomes a paradigm, a naturalistic worldview in which predictions can be performed. Because the theory itself cannot be tested, and thus is not science, it becomes more of a "metaphysical research program" as the evolutionist Karl Popper himself called it.

It's not only because the past is untestable that evolution is referred to as unfalsifiable and therefore not science. It is because when evolution does make predictions and those predictions, when tested, fail, the evolutionist doesn't consider his theory falsified but makes an excuse or gives an ad hoc hypothesis (explanations not dependant on scientific evidence, just a story to fill the gaps). This attitude shows the unfalsifiable nature of the theory, since the predictions can be tested here and there, but the main parts of the theory itself remains untouchable. There are numerous examples of this occurring.

Darwin himself, about 150 years ago in his book, predicted that if his theory were true, there should be innumerable fossil creatures in the ground showing the change from one form of organism to another.

"Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, first edition reprint (and in further editions) Avenel Books, p. 205)

To him, the fossil record should be full of smooth transitions and transitional forms. But even in his time no such smooth transitions were found. Instead, even up until now, the fossil record is known to show abrupt appearance of animals, which stay generally the same before disappearing the same way they appeared. That is known as stasis.

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt." (Robert G. Wesson, 'Beyond Natural Selection', 1991, p. 45)

The problem of sudden appearance is the worst problem because according to the theory, there needs to be simpler ancestors. But right smack at the foundation of the hypothetical geologic column, there are two layers. The lower one has no fossils, except for maybe a few signs of bacteria, algae, and pollen. But the one on top bursts with all the living phyla (body shapes), and no new ones are added further up in the hypothetical record. And these organisms show no sign of ancestry.

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative." (Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

It should be clear that the fossil record falsifies that prediction of Charles Darwin, even in his own day. It is said that opposition for his theory didn't initially come from theologians and theists, but from paleontologists. But what was Charles Darwin's and many other evolutionists story to cover this? Darwin used the story that the fossil record is incomplete or imperfect. In his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin has a whole chapter on the imperfection of the geological record (Chapter 10 in the 6th edition, but chapter 9 in the first). Evolutionists still use that, but it is difficult in the face of millions of fossils that have been found (and that isn't simply elephant hurling, but fact).

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track." —Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), p. 9.

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." —*David Raup, Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1979, pp. 22-29.

"There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world." —*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

Others use Gould's and Eldridge's punctuated equilibrium, which essentially is just another way of saying that all the evolution happened somewhere else, and when it was done, then the more fully formed creatures started to fossilize, which gives the appearance of sudden appearance. The strongest proof for this is the absence of ancestry for a huge number of animals, plants, and insects, i.e., the evidence is the absence of evidence. Some evolutionists say that there are multitudes and multitudes of transitional fossils that have been found. But for some reason, they simply forget to make these fossils open to the public. Talk Origins has a whole website about them, but when it is investigated, the claims are found to be erroneous. Most of what they have is small scraps, a good imagination, and a strong adherence to the naturalistic "metaphysical research program". The rest are just fully formed animals (see Transitional forms).

But this doesn't stop the evolutionist from believing. This doesn't falsify his theory, even though it falsifies the prediction it makes. And even if it appears to, there is an explanation just ready, whether faith in science's future discoveries, or excuses and ad hoc hypotheses. So to summarize:
Prediction: gradualism and change (Darwin), fossil record is supposed to show this as a family tree.
Actual/Observed: Abrupt appearance and stasis, gaps between kinds of creatures.
Ad hoc hypothesis/excuse: punctuated equilibrium (Gould, Eldridge), imperfect fossil record (Charles Darwin, ibid chapter 14), the claim that there are multitudes.

A brief, but far from exhaustive, summary of some other attempts at falsification that get bounced away by ad hoc hypotheses and excuses:
Prediction: natural selection and mutation must be able to add new or novel genetic information enough to change one kind (family or genera) of organism into another.
Actual/Observed: natural selection is a conservative force that is more likely to keep animals the same (a possible reason for stasis in the fossil record, if it is taken as a record of time, and not a record of sudden catastrophe), and mutations, due to their random nature, cannot add new genetic information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful, some are neutral, and the rest, though beneficial, do not add new genetic information, but may even leave the animal weaker.
Ad hoc hypothesis/excuse: still claim that mutation and natural selection are sufficient for evolution, or doubt the power of either while still holding on the "fact" that evolution happened.



Prediction: every organ or organism can be shown to have evolutionary development (Charles Darwin, Chapter 6 The Origin of Species)
Actual: evidence of specified and irreducible complexity (Michael Behe)
Ad hoc hypothesis/excuse: imaginative drawings (from the mind of men, not any direct evidence) of how such irreducibly complex organism may have evolved, "explanations of gene duplication and co-optation to build these complex structures." [1]

So there have been many attempts the falsify the theory, but it remains intact even in the face of the insufficiency of its predictions and promises. This just enforces the reason why creationists and others see the theory of evolution as unfalsifiable.

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)




There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:

Talk Origins makes out that there are many conceivable lines, but apparently "conceivable" does not mean "realistic". Many remarkable things can be conceived by the human mind and imagination, but such things are not necessarily the product of real life. This is made obvious by some of the disproofs Talk Origins along with other evolutionists demand. I say other evolutionists, because I personally had a debate with one who asked for such "imaginative", almost ridiculous evidences. If evidence against evolution has to come from mythical, unrealistic characters, "such as mermaids and centaurs", then it shows one of two things:
1. Either evolution is a myth itself
2. Or there are no realistic ways to falsify the theory, which proves its unfalsifiability




a static fossil record;

Talk Origins is presumably referring to animals, both complex and simple, appearing everywhere, e.g., human bones or artifacts could be found in the deepest Precambrian layer and all the way up to the top of the hypothetical geologic column. Although this desired piece of data is quite unrealistic for two reasons—the hypothetical nature of the column and the fact that a difference in the sorts of organisms in the layers are part of both the creationist and evolutionist model—there is a way to at least add some discomforting facts about the fossil record that goes against the evolution hypothesis.
The fossil record starts complex. Even if bacteria is small, it is not a simple organism and has a complexity that still cannot be explained simply by natural processes or by the fossil record. Supposed traces of bacteria, algae, and pollen (signs of flowers, complex plants) are found at the bottom of the hypothetical column with even more amazing creatures above, such as the trilobite which has one of the most complex optical system in nature, which leads us to our second problem.
the Cambrian explosion is a big problem for the evolution theory which predicts gradual change from one kind of animal to another. At the very base of the geologic column, there is a huge gap between the types of creature in the Precambrian, and the types of creature in the Cambrian, the next layer up. The creatures in the Cambrian layer appear to have no ancestry. The pattern of sudden appearance and staticity is a common feature in the fossil record.

But this shouldn't worry evolutionists, because, as explained, they'll have an "explanation" for it.

true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);

The desire for chimeras such as mermaids and centaurs is also quite unrealistic, but surprisingly enough there is a close contender in nature. By the way, a chimera is a creature that has different parts from different creatures, like the mermaid that has the top half of a human and the bottom half as a fish. The platypus is a creature that has a bill like a duck, fur like a mammal, webbed feet, a venom spur like a echidna, lays eggs like reptiles and birds, and has a tail like a beaver (see The echidna enigma ... and the platypus problem). Also it doesn't appear to have any strong fossil lineage. Evidence of its chimerical form is seen by the reaction of those who first saw it.

"In fact, when the first platypus specimen reached England in 1799 (it was long dead), it was regarded as a hoax, a ‘high frolic practised on the scientific community by some colonial prankster’.1 Experts of the day could not reconcile the fact that a duck-billed mammal with webbed feet and claws and a beaver-like tail could really exist. One zoologist, sure it was fraudulent, tried to remove the ‘duck’s bill’ from the pelt; his scissor-marks can still be seen on the original, in London’s British Museum of Natural History." (The platypus)


But this shouldn't worry evolutionists, because, as you've read above, they'll have an "explanation" for it. The Talk Origins page devoted to this animal notes a "scanty fossil record", i.e., not much hard evidence at all [2], but says In summary, the features of the living platypus, and the evidence available from its scanty fossil record, are both consistent with the idea that it has evolved from primitive mammals which still had many reptilian characteristics." Translation: no matter what, even in the face of little real evidence, but with a lot of imagination evolution must be true. It just must be! Mustn't it?

a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;

When it comes to mutations, this claim springs from an evolutionary belief (not a factual statement) that if "beneficial" mutations accumulate in an organism and enough change occurs towards a different type, then natural selection can make sure that new organism can survive, since it will be more able to produce more offspring with the improved genes. Firstly, it has been observed that mutations don't have enough power to make such a thing happen because it is random, and observed mutation decrease genetic information. So it seems that in the theory of evolution, you lose and lose until you become better, right?

So the problem is not mutations accumulating but the power of mutations. But there is evidence that they don't have the power to accumulate to the extent that evolutionists would like. DNA has the ability to check and heal itself.

"Cells have several mechanisms and methods for DNA repair—fixing various types of damage to DNA before it causes irreparable damage. While DNA repair mechanisms could be considered irreducibly complex, it can still be argued that natural selection would favor an organism with better DNA repair. This means that, however unlikely, evolutionists can still argue that natural selection could provide for DNA repair to evolve. Cells with mutations that improved DNA repair would be favored." (Startling plant discovery presents problems for evolution)


But this shouldn't worry evolutionists, because, as you've read above, they'll have an "explanation" for it.

observations of organisms being created.

Talk Origins' last example wouldn't disprove anything and it wouldn't falsify the theory of evolution. Why? Because, as should be clear by now, evolutionists will find an argument to still believe in evolution even in the face of something living being created.
It could be argued that that the created organism is being created in the present, so it doesn't prove it happened in the past.
They could find a way to incorporate this into the theory and find a natural cause for it even if it was done supernaturally.
They could wait a couple of days or years until the commotion about such an incredible thing dies down, and then created doubts about its veracity.

Evolutionism and the theory of evolution isn't so much about scientific falsification, but about a person's adherence to what they believe in. However, that is not to say that creationism is so different and that it is purely scientific. Both systems require faith. Both models have aspects that are falsifiable and aspects that are not. The main body of both stories/models are not falsifiable, but they can make predictions that are. But should these predictions fail the test, the model will not necessarily come tumbling down in the mind of the person that holds it. It takes a great many factors that will cause a person to change their worldview, but that is not within the scope of this article.

The conclusion is that the main aspects of evolution are unfalsifiable, and thus, not scientific.

This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified.

Again, Talk Origins has it wrong. You have to ask, what does a creationist mean when they say "evolution has been falsified"? It would be good to ask the individual creationist you are talking to. But in general, the predictions it has made have been tested and shown to be false, and thus the theory itself has little to no truth value. This is not to say there is no evidence that can be understood in the light of naturalism and the evolution hypothesis, but it is to say that
if evolution is science (which its main aspects are not), it can only be held tentatively (retaining one's doubt about it) and not as absolute truth
and if there is so much evidence against the theory, it doesn't need to be held at all
with the naturalistic religion evolution is a part of, there is no need to contradict or compromise one's own faith with such a thing in light of its failure in the cold light of reason, logic and evidence, all of which can be a part of one's religio-philosophical worldview.

But evolutionists, especially the ardent ones, don't hold to the first point by their very actions to impose it on others and ridicule those who disagree with it.

There are many other websites and scientific articles that show that such claims by creationists are not unsubstantiated concerning the falsification of the theory's predictions, and this article helps to show that. Creation science is more than just an opponent of evolution. It is a way of looking at the world in light of its creation and Creator having nothing to do with naturalism, unless the two clash. It is because creation science is more than just a claim of evolution's falsification that creation scientists can do research into possible ways the flood impacted the world, and study rock formations like Grand Canyon, and the aftermath of disasters, like Mount St. Helens, using science to help them understand more about themselves and the history of the world in light of the Almighty Creator. Before the theory of evolution had an organized beginning, creationism existed in the minds, actions, experiences and investigations of those who accepted the literal word of the books of Moses, especially Genesis 1 and 2. For these reasons and more, creation science is more than evolution's opponent.

So to conclude, the claim that the main aspects of the evolution theory are unfalsifiable are true and there is a lot of evidence for such a view.




Related References
1.↑ Design vs. Descent: A Contest of Predictions
2.↑ Creationism and the Platypus
Chapter 17 Fossils and Strata Part 1, from evolution-facts.org

See Also
Falsifiability

 

[Alter2Ego]

If the animals evolved, as you claim, where's the evidence of this? The pro-evolution scientists have all admitted that the fossils (bones of long dead animals) is full of nothing but gaps. Gaps indicate there are no bones to connect one type of animal family/species with an entirely different type.

You reference to this admission relates to the Scientific certainty level which is far beyond the normal standard of human understanding. If you have seen the TV series, "Bones", you have seen skeletal remains of the various victims on the Dr.'s table as she divines the cause of death.

If you were to lay the bones of chimps, gorillas, squirrels, cats, dogs and all the animals with spines on the table in the same way and this goes all the way back to the dinosaurs, you can find pretty much the same set of bones in each of these animals with few departures.

ALTER2EGO -to- CODE1211:

Similarity of bones in different types of animals means absolutely nothing. Pieces of a jigsaw puzzle are similar--until you try to fit them into the wrong slot and realize they don't match up. That's why pro-evolution scientists continue to lament the gaps in the fossils record. In other words, you did not present evidence of evolution. Instead, you presented your personal opinion about the similarity of the skeletal remains of various animals.

As far as the evidence of Evolution, it is all around us and the mechanisms for it are being exposed and are being used on a daily basis as Corn is being made into hybrids and thoroughbreds are being raised to run races and dogs are being bred to win shows or hunt ducks.

If you have ever looked at a baby and said he has his mother's nose, you are witnessing evolution.

ALTER2EGO -to- CODE1211:

What you're referring to as "evolution" is nothing more than variation of the exact same creature. The animal or plant didn't change into anything other than what it started out as. The corn is still corn and the dog is still a dog. That's "variation," not "evolution."

 

[Youwerecreated]

If the animals evolved, as you claim, where's the evidence of this? The pro-evolution scientists have all admitted that the fossils (bones of long dead animals) is full of nothing but gaps. Gaps indicate there are no bones to connect one type of animal family/species with an entirely different type.

You reference to this admission relates to the Scientific certainty level which is far beyond the normal standard of human understanding. If you have seen the TV series, "Bones", you have seen skeletal remains of the various victims on the Dr.'s table as she divines the cause of death.

If you were to lay the bones of chimps, gorillas, squirrels, cats, dogs and all the animals with spines on the table in the same way and this goes all the way back to the dinosaurs, you can find pretty much the same set of bones in each of these animals with few departures.

ALTER2EGO -to- CODE1211:

Similarity of bones in different types of animals means absolutely nothing. Pieces of a jigsaw puzzle are similar--until you try to fit them into the wrong slot and realize they don't match up. That's why pro-evolution scientists continue to lament the gaps in the fossils record. In other words, you did not present evidence of evolution. Instead, you presented your personal opinion about the similarity of the skeletal remains of various animals.

As far as the evidence of Evolution, it is all around us and the mechanisms for it are being exposed and are being used on a daily basis as Corn is being made into hybrids and thoroughbreds are being raised to run races and dogs are being bred to win shows or hunt ducks.

If you have ever looked at a baby and said he has his mother's nose, you are witnessing evolution.

ALTER2EGO -to- CODE1211:

What you're referring to as "evolution" is nothing more than variation of the exact same creature. The animal or plant didn't change into anything other than what it started out as. The corn is still corn and the dog is still a dog. That's "variation," not "evolution."

The variations come from Genetics that part they wish to ignore.

 

[Alter2Ego]

If the animals evolved, as you claim, where's the evidence of this? The pro-evolution scientists have all admitted that the fossils (bones of long dead animals) is full of nothing but gaps. Gaps indicate there are no bones to connect one type of animal family/species with an entirely different type.

Gaps aren't proof of anything, except that not all fossils have been, will be or can be found. You're also mixing up several lines of inquiry. Is this about evolution, ID or the origin of the universe?

ALTER2EGO -to- KONRADY:
Of course they are. Gaps in the fossils record is proof that macroevolution is a myth. I mentioned evolution theory and Big Bang theory in my OP because they both dismiss an intelligent Creator and rely on things happening by accident. Not surprisingly, neither theory comes with supporting evidence.

 

[Dragon]

Evolution does NOT suffer from the same problem as ID. It is quite falsifiable. Here is one simple way in which evolution could be proven false:

Show that natural selection does not result in changes to the genetic makeup of living organisms. This could be done experimentally by taking a population of microorganisms, subjecting them to conditions that are lethal to a significant part of the population, and showing that generations following from this do not exhibit increased resistance to those conditions. Conditions that would serve for the test include extremes of temperature, reduced availability of nutrient, the presence of predators, or chemical factors such as antibiotics. Natural selection being a key feature of the theory of evolution, if it is proven not to work, that would disprove the theory.

That's the kind of thing I'm looking for with respect to intelligent design. If you can show a way that we can conduct an experiment to prove ID false, then you will have made ID falsifiable and it will need to be considered a scientific theory, and evaluated as a competitor to evolution.

Please do so.

Incidentally, gaps in the fossil record, while inconvenient, don't do anything to prove evolution false. In fact, all of the "evidence" and arguments presented so far serve only to show that evolution theory has not been finally proven true, and as I said that's a given; it will never be proven true, nor will any other scientific theory. That doesn't matter. As long as it serves to explain observed phenomena, allows us to make useful predictions, and has never been proven false, it will remain the accepted theory of speciation; at such time as any of these ceases to be the case, it will be replaced by another theory that works better. But in order for any theory to be considered as a replacement for evolution, it must meet the minimum criteria for any scientific theory, including falsifiability. ID, so far, is not falsifiable, therefore is not a scientific theory, therefore need not be considered.

You may remedy that by proposing a test to prove ID false.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Before we get started on this, let's see if we can lay to rest the most basic criticism of intelligent design: that it is not falsifiable, and hence not a scientific theory. If it is not a scientific theory, then it cannot compete with evolution, which is one, and therefore there is not much need to discuss it.

However, this is easily remedied, I would think. To "falsify" a theory is to present a test or experiment or observation that, if it results in A instead of B, means that the theory is not correct.

Can someone tell me a test that would, if it turns out a certain way, prove that intelligent design is false? If so, then we must consider it falsifiable and hence a scientific theory. (Note: this does not mean claiming that it IS actually false, just presenting a test that would prove it false, IF it is.)

I await your responses with great interest.

ALTER2EGO -to- DRAGON:

Do you realize that "scientific theory" is nothing more than a group of hypotheses (educated guesses) that can be disputed? In other words, theory is nothing but speculations aka not fact. So tell me, how is speculation by humans more valid than what's written in the Judeo-Christian Bible? Keep in mind that the Bible has almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled prophecies--many of which have been confirmed by archeology and secular history. In other words, the Bible presents evidence that it's the inspired Word of Jehovah. As such, what is written therein is worth believing.

 

[Dragon]

Do you realize that "scientific theory" is nothing more than a group of hypotheses (educated guesses) that can be disputed? In other words, theory is nothing but speculations aka not fact. So tell me, how is speculation by humans more valid than what's written in the Judeo-Christian Bible?

What is written in the Bible is merely the pronouncements of primitive people, and thus not even educated guesses. Obviously, human effort today, with much better tools and a much better knowledge base to work with, is superior to what was possible for nomads thousands of years ago. There is no good reason to believe the Bible consists of anything other than human effort; those who do believe that believe it in response to a threat of Hell or a promise of Heaven or both, hence have been blackmailed or bribed into accepting it, and hence are not evaluating it rationally.

 

[Alter2Ego]

See, here's what it really comes down to.

When we're dealing with ideas of such broad application as evolution and ID, it is inherently impossible to finally prove any theory TRUE. Evolution has never been proven true. Neither has the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity. Or, of course, intelligent design.

But while it's not possible to prove these theories true, it is quite possible to prove them FALSE -- or at least, those that are genuine scientific theories can be proven false.

In order to be reasonably considered as an alternative to evolution, what's necessary is that the advocates of ID show how that theory can be proven false, if it is false. That's all. Failing that, there's no reason even to consider ID at all.

Gravity is a Law and has been proven as FACT. When you speak of the "theory of gravity," you are merely referring to the "why" (e.g. why do things fall to the ground rather stay mid-air).

 

[Dragon]

Gravity is a Law and has been proven as FACT. When you speak of the "theory of gravity," you are merely referring to the "why" (e.g. why do things fall to the ground rather stay mid-air).[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Yes, and when I refer to the "theory of evolution," I am also referring to the "why." Evolution as such -- that forms of life change dramatically over many generations -- is as much a fact as gravity. The theory of evolution is an idea of why and how that occurs.

Incidentally, intelligent design, if it is not merely a fig-leaf over biblical 6-day creation, is also a theory of evolution. It poses that species have changed over time under the guidance of a creative intelligence.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Gravity is a Law and has been proven as FACT. When you speak of the "theory of gravity," you are merely referring to the "why" (e.g. why do things fall to the ground rather stay mid-air).

Yes, and when I refer to the "theory of evolution," I am also referring to the "why." Evolution as such -- that forms of life change dramatically over many generations -- is as much a fact as gravity. The theory of evolution is an idea of why and how that occurs.

Incidentally, intelligent design, if it is not merely a fig-leaf over biblical 6-day creation, is also a theory of evolution. It poses that species have changed over time under the guidance of a creative intelligence.

ALTER2EGO -to- DRAGON:

No, the theory of evolution is not merely about the "why" (as in why did animals evolve from the get-go). Whereas the Law of Gravity has been proven by the fact that when something falls we know it will hit the ground (evidence), the theory of evolution has no evidence to support it.

If macroevolution had occurred, evidence of it would have been found in the fossils--which are the remains of animals that died thousands of years ago. Instead, the paleontologists continue to whine that they cannot find any evidence that animals evolved from what they started off as. Below is a typical example of what was found in the fossils.

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)